wikialityfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Featured Articles
Please use this page to nominate articles for inclusions. If you tamper with anyone else's vote, you will be banned! ---- Voting records are kept here: Talk:Featured Articles/Winners Talk:Featured Articles/Losers ---- =Rules= # Nominated Article must meet Wikiality.com standards: ## must be about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. ## if not directly about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A., it must reflect "The Stephen Colbert Experience" ## must be funny (actually, its more imporant to be satirical, but that's a wordonista word and what we really want is somebody nailed that we can laugh at) ## must be written by a Registered User ## must be truthy #Criteria for "Featured" Nominees ## must not contain red links ## must not contain any Wikipedophilia ## must not contain any facts ## must not be overly random ## spelling, punctuation, grammatical and formatting errors kept to a minimum. #When Nominating: ##Include the title of the article as a link ##"sign" the nomination ##provide some kind of explanation as to "Why You Nominated It" ##create space to vote "Yes", "Not Yet" and "No" #Only Registered Users Who Have Contributed Positively to Wikiality.com Are Allowed to: ##Nominate an article for "Featured" status ##Vote for "Featured Articles" ##And, yes, you may nominate and vote for your own article #Number of Articles to be Featured at Any Given Time ##Only 10 articles will be "Featured" at any given time. ##When a new article is added, the oldest one is dropped off the list. ##Articles stay on the "Featured" section of the Main Page until they are dropped off by a new addition. #Voting ##a User may only have one vote per nomination. ##a User may vote for as many nominees as they choose. #Judging Nominations ##An Article will be featured if it receives five votes of "Yes" ##An Article will be removed from nomination, if it receives five votes of "No" ##An Article that has been voted "Not Yet" will be left on the list untill it either improves and is voted in, or degrades in quality, and is voted off. ##If your vote is "No", please give a brief explanation of your position. This page is designed for voting only. Please direct conversations to the associated "talk Page" for the specific article. Winning, Losing and Scoring *An article will become featured if it gets 5 "Yes" votes. *An article will get sent to the loser's bin if it gets 5 "No" votes or has not received a sufficient amount of votes within 5 days of being nominated. *"Not Yet" votes do not count for or against the article. They are null votes used to straddle the fence until the article is fixed. *You may change your vote by using the tag to encompass your old vote so that we can readily see change. BE WARNED: Do not change another person's vote or you WILL be banned. *Note: A "Yes" vote will not cancel out a "No" and vice versa. If five "No" votes are cast before 5 "Yes" votes then the article will not receive a featured status. How To Vote *Just write "+1" under "Yes", "No", or "Not Yet" followed by 2 of these "-", then 4 of these "~", with no spaces in between. *The "+1" notes your choice, and the "--~~~~" leaves your signature. So, for those of you who still don't get it: "+1 --~~~~" under your choice. Without the quotes, dummy. Trouble Voting? If you can't edit this page, and you are logged in, comment on the Talk:Main_Page, if there is a syscop around, they will come and help you. If you tamper with anyone else's vote, you will be banned! =Nominees= Montana nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 Ted Turner has content, and this article is good.--Lewser 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 All fixes complete. My vote is now "Yes" (changed from "Not Yet")--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Sure. Thanks. --seaRob 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Thruth Monger 07:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Tells me "All I need to know" about Montana No Not Yet +1 I know, I know, I nominated it, so why don't I vote "yes" First: it has a red link, Ted Turner, and it has some blank spaces in the table. But if those were fixed, it would make a fine addition to the "Featured" heap.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Abraham Lincoln nominated by --Ravman29 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 - An impressive display of truthiness. --Amoirae 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - I don't mean to toot my own horn, but if it worked for Mark Foley... --Ravman29 +1 - Brilliant, I laughed my ass off. I think there's enough Colbert to make it a feature article. --Victor99 +1 - If Abe was around he would be a Colbert fan.--BearHunter +1 - Abraham would be proud.--lovelylumps :These three votes are disqualified. --Lewser 10:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 The bulk of the article was created by an unregistered user (against feature guidelines) and is totally random. The article needs an overhaul, not front page featured status. --Thruth Monger 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Not Yet +1 Random, but consistently so. I think it just needs a little more Dr.Colbert--Lewser 06:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Too random to be truthy. It would need an overhaul. Not a complete one, but enough of an overhaul to remove the "pop-culture-bag-of-trivia" feel. I feel what it might need is a rearranging of all those famous books on Lincoln published recently. I don't know where that came from, someone must have hijacked my computer and facted it. --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Reads too much like an uncyclopedia or Onion article. Funny is one of the elements of a feature article, and not the most important. Funny ha ha, or funny OUCH, not just wAckiality.--Pro-Lick 04:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Acadian nominated by --Danforth 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 Although I agree with your line of thought, I'd also like to say one thing: Why else do we use Wikiality but to learn about all things related to Stephen Colbert (and debunk all things outside of His orbit)? (I did fix the «» things though, I'm not sure what I was thinking.) --Danforth 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 I officially move my vote from "Not Yet" to a firm "Yes" Beautiful article.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) +1 as the man who came up with deporty and surrendery, as well as serge leblanc, I say holy shit, its awesome --Cliftoris 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC) +1 It still scares me but not to the point where I think it threatens America. I change my vote. --Fuzzy 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC) No Not Yet +1 needs only a little "formatting" first.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - I am a little drawn on this article. It is a good article, but it made me learn something, which I am forbade to do. Also it has those weird << >> looking things that scare me. --Fuzzy 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - So True. --Lewser 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - Necessito mas truthisimo --Tommyill 08:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Charlene (I'm Right Behind You Now) nominated by --Sarlaccpit48 3:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 --Sarlaccpit 48 I'm right behind you Stephen! No +1 - I don't know if you can get enough truthiness out of Charlene to make this a featured article--Lewser 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) :(FYI, I added some suggestions on the article's talk page)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 I officially change my vote to NO. Charlene is dead to me. --Fuzzy 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 -Thruth Monger 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) If someone wants to work on the Charlene page then we can talk. Not Yet +1 Needs a little more meat, truthiness.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 I like the article, but it is basically verbatim what we know of the topic from the TV show. --DeagleSteagle +1 Concur. More comments on article's talk page -- seaRob 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Also agree.--uno 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Davidj 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) ditto +1 I agree with the masses. --Fuzzy 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Delaware nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Lewser 05:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC) +1 -- Kudzu 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Surekthanks 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 -Thruth Monger 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Boring state=Boring Article. A bit thin compared to some of the other state pages. Needs more. Not Yet +1 (lets get it a bit more formatting first and then I'll be on board) --DeagleSteagle +1 Funny and has potential, but agreed, it is a little thin compared to the rest of the states. --Fuzzy 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Cylons nominated by--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) This article explains the "Schwarzenegger" cylon, it is not completely random--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Yes + 1--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) + 1--seaRob 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) + 1 --Amoirae 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 Its good, but wanna talk about random?--Lewser 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Its good, but wanna talk about random? JINX! --Fuzzy 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) * Tee hee. See article's talk page. **That counts as a "No" vote! --Fuzzy 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Not Yet +1 (a bunch of pictures does not a featured article-class entry make) -- Kudzu 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 (I concur) --DeagleSteagle * OK. I can appreciate that. It's how we get to wikiality, after all. I have, therefore, added a bit more about the truthy bear heritage of the Cylons. Furthermore, I would humbly submit that it may be a bit Wikiphilic to suggest that only a long texty article with a dearth of pictures should be considered for featured status. Articles like that might lead visitors to believe that we want them to read stuff. It's a slippery slope from there to books -- and that's something we should avoid, eh? (Previous sentence in in Canadian. Mea culpa.) -- seaRob +1 --Thruth Monger 09:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Still needs cleaning up. The Tek Jansen pic is covering some of the text, and the second sentence "They evolved" seems out of place on this site. Ted Kennedy nominated by --DeagleSteagle 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 --DeagleSteagle No +1 --Thruth Monger 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Like WatchTV says. It's too random and spacey. +1 A Kennedy as a feature??? I think not! --Fuzzy 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Gravity36 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)I dont see Stephen mentioning him in a large enough depth. Also hes a democrat and factonista. Not Yet +1 Maybe a little less randomness, clean up the interstellar references a bit.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Yeah, its good, just tone down the Interstellar randomness --Lewser 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Poincare conjecture nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Yes + 1--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) :FYI, the guy who won the Fields Medal won for his work on the Poincare conjecture Stephen even did a bit on it.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 - Its good, very truthy, and true to The Colbert Report but I barely cracked a smile.--Lewser 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Not Yet +1 --Davidj 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) That's getting close to being an inside joke. I remember something about topology from calculus and matrices class in university but had not head of this asshole Dr. Yau. What as asshole. Definately worth the attention though. Thanks. +1 - --Pro-Lick 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) It lacks a direct Colbert reference too. If your not mentioning him, your blaspheming him. +1 - --Thruth Monger 09:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Needs a picture of Colbert and the Donut. Caption: "Dr. Colbert Demonstrates his proof of the poicare conjecture." Also, a sacred theory would be hallowed, not hollowed. :FYI: (It is math-nerd humor. Also, we are talking about holes in objects, so the theory would be "hollow"ed. Ha, ha.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)) ::Actually I suspected that was the case. I have a hard time believing even math nerds would think that was funny though. --Thruth Monger 10:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Soledad O'Brien Nominated by --Pro-Lick 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 - --Pro-Lick 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - --rabidmonkey No +1 --Thruth Monger 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Not even close at this point. Needs heavy formatting and some actual content. Pics should only be of the subject and Steven. No pics of Steven's Jewish friend are appropriate. +1 Formatting bugs the hell out of me. Needs more content, and lose a couple of those pictures. But i believe the captions of the pictures of Soledad and Jew make them worth keeping. Its the pictures at the top that are unnecessary--Lewser 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 This one has so much potential, but it's not a feature by any means. I am officially changing my vote to NO. --Fuzzy 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Superfan 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) No way! I know she's the most beautiful woman on Earth, but she has to have more than pictures! (Although I could start at those pictures for a long, long time) Not Yet +1 Not until it's cleaned up a bit and more info is added. This article has so much potential! And it's sloppy at the moment. --Fairy Incognito +1 It needs some more text and more Colbert. JesusChrist 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Didn't Stephen mention her entire background once? Or was that Jon Stewart? One of those gyus did a bit on the extent of her racial heritage.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Gravity36 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) The page is too rough and sloppy. +1 This one has so much potential, but it's not a feature by any means. --Fuzzy 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) The Qur'an Yes +1 I think it is a good featured article. JesusChrist 09:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 - its a decent article, but I don't think its front page material--Lewser 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Superfan 21:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) It's too negitive. If I remember correctly, Stephen doesn't want to insult Muslims or the Qur'an. Not Yet +1 Needs a bit of editing and a little more meat to it... but essentially good. Throw in a bit more about Colbert and I'd say yes --matty233 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 Too many red links. --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 It's Funny. I say add more pictures and fix red links and you have my vote, fo shizzle! --Fuzzy 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Stem Cell Research Nominated by --Davidj 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 --Davidj 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) gotta nominate it since it is in the news and a hot election issue +1 I like it. I'll vote positively for anything that involves throwing urine at Nazis or Mexican Revolutionists. --Fuzzy 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) No +1 --Thruth Monger 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Lacks any Colbert tie-ins and still needs much work. Not Yet +1 Very timely, kudos. However, rules state no red links and it does have one: East Coast Elitists, go to the talk page for this article and see the rest of my pet peeves...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) The New York Times Nominated by --Tommyill 08:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Yes No Not Yet +1 - This article has a lot of potential, but its not ready yet. I think it needs a little more...something...--Lewser 19:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - As one of the top enemies to America, I agree the NYT article needs more than we've got here. -Thruth Monger 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Green Screen Challenge Nominated by --GCZ 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Yes +1 - A tremendous opportunity for the heroes of this nation to observe heroes conributing to the glorification of our leader, Mr. Colbert. Adding this page to the "Feautred Articles" List will enable our blessed heros to be ever more inspired to endeavor even further to continually contribute to the global online monument that stands in reverence of the great Stephen Colbert. - GCZ 01:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC) No Not Yet What looks like the most comprehensive compilation of the Green Screen challenges in any internets tube. If the links are legit, I will vote "yes"--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 06:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) *Thanks, they are indeed all legit. - GCZ 05:36, 28 October 2006 +1 As of right now, all the links are legit. If we do something about the question marks in the montage I think this is a great feature. --Thruth Monger 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC) *Filling in the blanks is an ongoing mission. There have already been many filled in since you posted this and I am confident that more will follow. I have advertised this article on Colbert Nation and hope that soon the remaining suthors will prvoide links to their submissions. Even if they fail ot do so, the search continues and I SHALL seek them out. - GCZ 05:38, 28 October 2006